That's the title of a piece, in First Things, that Rick Garnett and I think many of you will be interested in. You can read it here. Rick and I have both been--long been--big fans of Shusaku Endo's 1966 novel, Silence--and have both been waiting forever for Scorsese's film version of the novel.

That's the title of a paper that Charles Reid, Professor of Law at the University of St. Thomas, has just posted to SSRN. Given the subject matter of the paper, some information about Professor Reid's academic background is relevant. Professor Reid attended the Catholic University of America, where he earned J.D. and J.C.L. (license in canon law) degrees. Reid later attended Cornell University, where he earned a Ph.D. in the history of medieval law under the supervision of Brian Tierney. His thesis at Cornell was on the Christian, medieval origins of the western concept of individual rights. Over the last ten years, he has published a number of articles on the history of western rights thought, and is currently completing work on a book manuscript addressing this question. In 1991, Reid was appointed research associate in law and history at the Emory University School of Law, where he has worked closely with Harold Berman on the history of western law.

Reid's article on same-sex unions and the Catholic Church is downloadable for free here. This is the abstract:

This Article makes the case for reforming the Catholic Church’s law and teaching on the topic of same-sex unions. It is divided into two large parts. Part I surveys the present state of the Church’s rules governing same-sex relations. It is further subdivided into three subsections: the first examining the formation and reinforcement of the anti-sodomy norm in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries; the second reviewing the jurisprudence of the Roman Rota (one of the Vatican’s two supreme appellate tribunals) on homosexuality; the third glancing briefly at more affirming recent statements of Pope Francis and leading Cardinals and bishops. The second part then states the case for reform. It begins by recapitulating the natural-law case against same-sex unions, especially as articulated by Pope John Paul II; it then focuses on personalist philosophy to build a case grounded in human dignity and human rights; it looks to see how arguments grounded on dignity, respect, and human rights were used in legislative and constitutional reform in the United States and in three Catholic countries; and it returns again to natural law. Building on the premise that natural law requires an understanding of nature, the Article reviews the state of the science on same-sex attraction. It closes with a reflection on the many ways the Church has dynamically reinterpreted its normative structure and proposes that reform of the law on same-sex unions would be in keeping with other large historical shifts in the Church’s law and doctrine.

That's the title of a little essay by Professor/Judge John Noonan that was published almost thirty years ago (1987) in the Journal of Law and Religion. A little essay, but nonetheless an important one. I happened to reread it today--and thought that many MOJ readers would (and/or should) be interested in it. Here it is, all nine and a half pages: Download John Noonan (1987).

Rick Garnett has noted (here) that I am one of the MOJers who signed the "Brief of Amici Curiae Legal Scholars in Support of Equality and Religious and Expressive Freedom". Unless I am mistaken, I am the only MOJer who signed the brief who also believes that Obergefell v. Hodges was rightly decided--although I do not believe that Obergefell was rightly reasoned. For my alter ego Justice Nemo's concurring opinion in the case, see Obergefell v. Hodges: An Imagined Opinion, Concurring in the Judgment. Another MOJer, Tom Berg, and acclaimed religious liberty scholar/advocate Doug Laycock are also supporters both of SCOTUS's decision in Obergefelland of the understanding of religious freedom that animates our friend Steve Smith's argument in "Brief of Amici Curiae Legal Scholars".

That's the title of a piece today in the New York Times (online edition) by Deborah Fikes, who previously served as a board member of the National Association of Evangelicals and as the Executive Advisor to the World Evangelical Alliance. She holds a graduate degree in international law from Oxford University. I think many MOJ readers will be interested in what Ms. Fikes has to say (here).

That's the title of a discerning essay, on our present political situation, over at Commonweal (here). An excerpt:

Neither party, then, offers a compelling vision of human well-being. The Republicans stand up for the unborn and families, but they refuse to address the economic and social roots of abortion and the precariousness material conditions that threaten so many families. The Democrats support basic economic fairness and stand against racism, but they are most animated by the right of each individual to choose their own conception of the good. They are more interested in tolerance and diversity than in true solidarity. Neither party espouses a conception of freedom oriented toward the common good. Libertarians dismiss the very idea of a common good, seeing only a collection of individual people with individual interests. Latter-day progressives start from a slightly different point of view but reach a very similar conclusion; they argue that a commitment to pluralism precludes any notion of a common good. Missing from both views is the deep sense that “we are all really responsible for all.”